Dec 4, 2012 4:00pm PST
to reduce the deficit, 63% said no. 86% of the ads run for obama were personal attacks on romney. he won a stunning mandate to not be romney. he did not run on the basis he was going to do massive new spending and the kind of tax increases, $1.6 trillion that he's now talking about. and at the same time that obama was elected president, the republican house, which had twice voted for a real budget -- remember, the president's budget he claims he has a mandate for was put up before the house and the democrats all voted against it. in the senate, the democrats didn't want to have anything to do with it. it's a little hard to argue, he had a mandate for something the rest of his party ran away from. >> well -- >> did not run ads on those issues. >> and, of course, it was a bit more complicated than that. but to your point about the exit polls, it's true, most people said that they didn't want tax increases to solve the deficit. what they said -- the majority, was they wanted both balanced. they wanted cuts and tax increases. which is what both john boehner and the president -- in very strid
Nov 28, 2012 4:00pm PST
, we have a trillion dollar annual deficit and this would not close that gap at all. so the president needs to come up with a plan and for better or worse going to require leadership. no member of the senate or the house is going to be able to do this, this is something the president has to do by himself and he can't do it on the campaign trail. >> let me ask you this because you wrote an op-ed today and you wrote about divided government about the deal. you said divided government means that neither democrats nor republicans will be able to pass legislation along strictly partisan lines. we cannot tax our way back to budget surpluses and economic prosperity without major spending cuts and entitle 347b9 reforms we will continue running a huge deficit regardless of what anyone does on either side. for every dollar of revenue you give him, he'll give you $2.50 of spending cuts. if he gave you that on spending cuts, it would be 8$850 billon year would you do that? >> the president has said a lot of things, but what counts is what he's willing to put on the table and so far, he hasn't put
Nov 29, 2012 4:00pm PST
to work, a lot of the deficit goes away. >> didn't they say that last time? >> i didn't vote for that and the word stimulus is totally discredited. it did not -- 7% of that bill was investment and infrastructure. 42% was tax cuts. we've been trying tax cuts for more than a decade. they don't put people back to work. real investment does. we have report after report, economist after economist, real investment will put millions of people back to work. >> right. those were tax cuts of the vast middle in this country. what you want to extend and the republicans. i'm still confused. if the president wants $1.6 trillion in revenue and is going to do his math, that's $3 trillion in cuts. why only put 400 billion out? >> well, he's probably leaving himself a little room to negotiate. >> a little. >> is reasonable on medicare. if he just started negotiating lower drug prices, that saves medicare $230 billion over ten years. and then you deal with some of these high cost private insurance plans under medicare and a couple of other minor changes that won't hurt average american, won't m
Dec 6, 2012 4:00pm PST
're running a trillion dollar deficit year single year. if we went back to zero, we're rebalanced. right now with the fourth year in a row, that deficit and debt continues to climb. so it doesn't really wipe it out and the challenge of it is what does that do to the overall economy. we're not just dealing with one tax increase as well. a lot of people lose track of that. the affordable care about actually begin on january 1st as well for people making $200,000 or more. or people having large medical bills. this is talking about an additional tax increase on top of that. >> what about what bill clinton said? he said once things start to get better and that's a crucial point he was making. once the economy starts to get better, taxes have to go up on the middle class. do you agree? is. >> i don't, actually. and the reason being is that right now, if you look at the real math, in 2007 and 012, we have the same amount of revenue. now, 2008 and 2009, we had a dramatic drop in federal revenues, but we've slowly climbed back up. revenue has gone up every year of the obama administration and now, we
Nov 30, 2012 11:00pm PST
in these negotiations or in terms of reducing this $1.1 trillion deficit if you don't do something about these entitlements. so everyone's kind of waiting, when will the president come forward with those recommendations? >> if i could just jump in really quick, one of the problems with entitlement cuts is they don't produce a lot of savings in the first ten years. >> that's true. that's true. >> a lot of the things ryan proposed are going to be phased in gradually. if we're going to be obsessively focused on the ratio between revenue and spending, then republicans are going to be in for some disappointment because all the things they want on entitlements basically phase in. this is consistent what they said about not wanting to change things for people over 55. and the fact that even paul ryan and mitt romney ran away from entitlement cuts in paul ryan's budget in the last election i think is a sign of where the american public is. they do want the rich to pay their fair share in taxes, but they really don't like a lot of the entitlement cuts. >> that's a fair point. that's a fair point.
Dec 3, 2012 11:00pm PST
not represent the bowles simpson plan, nor is it the bowles plan in my testimony on deficit reduction. i simply took the mid point of the public offers, put forward during the negotiations to demonstrate where i thought a deal could be reached at the time. he's very much backing away from speaker boehner's letter. the question i wanted to ask you is some of the details, as you know, it's all in. >> can we spin one more point on that? >> absolutely. >> here's speaker boehner who is taking a mid point on the compromise between the two sides and offered it, and it's already flatley rejected? >> i think he may be rejected, sir, if i may -- >> i'm not talking about simpson -- erskine boelsz. i'm talking about the white house's response to it. >> let's get to that too. i think what erskine bowles is saying in his statement, that this letter from speaker boehner does not represent his theory, number one, but i think the line that the white house is having problems with, and i believe i found it in page two of the speaker's letter, i'll read it to you if i can. he says this, notably, the new revenue in
Dec 3, 2012 4:00pm PST
before the joint select committee on deficit reduction, i simply took the midpoint of the public offers to demonstrate where i thought a deal could be reached at the time. he's very much backing away from speaking boehner's letter, but the question i wanted the to ask you -- >> can we spend one more point on that? >> of course. >> what did he say? that was the midpoint of a compromise from the two. so, here's speaker boehner who is taking a new point on the compromise between the two sides and offered it and it's already flatly rejected? >> i think what he might be rejecting, sir, if i may -- >> no, i'm not talking abo about erskine bowles. >> i think what he's saying in his statement, this letter from speaker boehner does not represent his theerly, number one, but i think the line the white house is have been problems with, i believe i found it in page two of the speaker's letter, he says this. notably, the new revenue in the bowles plan would not be a i chiefed through higher taxes, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy.